[anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up

Suresh,

On Monday, 2012-10-08 19:22:10 +0530, 
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> The data is out there and has been analyzed in multiple places.
> 
> However, in the interests of sanity - and so that this issue does not
> get ignored by pointing out where all it is not relevant to RIPE NCC's
> mandate or out of scope of any RIR .. [such as domain names for
> example, you want ICANN for that, and the UDRP] ..

While the anti-abuse working group does help create RIPE policy, that
is not the only thing it does.

I had a quick look at the charter:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse

And I didn't see anything about limiting discussion or work to issues
related to the RIPE NCC.

I think that the working group is free to discuss anything the
participants want to, as long as it is related to abuse on the
Internet.

> Can you please focus on
> 
> 1. How many of these resolve to IPs in the RIPE coverage area
> 2. How many of them are actual RIPE allocations to malicious entities,
> rather than compromised IPs for example?
> 
> #2 in particular.

Having said that, I do agree that your questions are interesting. They
point to an area that might result in the RIPE NCC being able to help
reduce this kind of shady marketing! :)

Cheers,

--
Shane